Ron Paul Home School Curriculum Under Attack

It seems once again Ron Paul is being attacked by big publications like the Guardian, even in retirement he simply can’t promote liberty without the internationalists taking issue. So what is the tactic they are using this time? Apparently his Homeschool Curriculum is being written by Evangelical Christians… dun da duuuun!

isn't an Evangelical Christian. He's said a lot of things that give people good reason to question just how much of a Christian Re-constructionist he is. Reconstructionists have a lot of legitimate criticisms of the state as it is, but so does anyone who is on the outside of power looking in, wanting it so they can impose their own version. They are not libertarians wanting the state out of the way so they can impose nothing in its place.

Parents should be asking questions about how deeply Re-constructionist views may penetrate the curriculum. And if answers aren't easy to find, I expect many people at the screening stage for half a dozen curricula will move on.

Being gob-smacked that anyone's questioning the curriculum will get us nowhere. And if, in their sincere efforts to address their concerns, they come across straw-manning of their criticisms as an attack on Evangelicals, they may conclude their concerns will never be taken seriously and move on to something else that much more quickly.

The people asking these questions are good people looking for quality materials. They've looked into the materials deeply enough to ask, "who is this Gary North?", not just deeply enough to say, "oh, didn't I hear Ron Paul is crazy?" They are the market for the curriculum, not a bunch of statists trying to put down anything freedom-related. If Gary North's involvement is a detriment to that quality to them and there is no argument that addresses their actual concerns, then I would think a reasonable person should move on to something else.

There is a market that's not worried about Reconstructionist views being included, but it's Gothard, ATI, and other patriarchal movements. I was envisioning Ron Paul's curriculum having a further reach and I still hope concerns can be addressed better so it can.

What materials? They haven't been released yet, but I congratulate you on the flowery prose.

It is not North, but Tom Woods that is writing the history parts of the curriculum, and he's Roman Catholic.

I disagree with the Roman Catholic version of history - like leaving out the inquisitions, the fact that they didn't have much to do with founding the country - they like to smooth that over, past pedophile scandals, like 'castro' choir boys, etc - "small" stuff like that, But you haven't seen anyone complaining about that.

Whoever's behind this smear, they seem to be anti-Protestant, but not anti-Catholic.

I mean, really grow some balls. You're crying about nothing if you aren't mentioning problems with Roman Catholic history. As far as me, why should I care. when it is released I don't need to buy it if I don't like it.

—

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

"Woods is a convert to the Roman Catholic Church and author of How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization"

There is some possibility this whole thing is to get protestant buy in to something they wouldn't normally buy, as Woods is doing the history thing.

However, Protestants aren't crybabies. So this howling is either to get them to buy it by reacting to a fake atheist smear, or atheists are just cry babies.

I personally have no problem opening up a catholic book and being against it. This is quite a bit different than the catholic banned book list, etc - it's a protestant ideal. So no, you won't see much defaming against a possibility of catholicism here - what a bunch of cry babies. But we won't buy it if it's like that.

—

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Actually, it's probably a complete disaster for Woods to be in charge of the history section, as the Roman Catholic church completely controlled Europe for a long time, and you will not learn history by covering up for the Roman Catholic church.

They use to castrate boys to make them sing better in their choirs. Pedophile scandal has been going on a long time. I don't think a Tom Woods history will mention any of the multitude of wrongs by the Roman Catholic church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castrato
Voice of angels Vatican view of the sound of castrati, sanctioned by Pope Sisto V who sanctioned their presence in the Vatican by papal bull, 1589.
Sistine chapel choir Popes maintained a choir of castrati to perform in the Sistine chapel as an edict by St. Paul prevented women singing in church. Officially, the Vatican condemned the practice and punished castrators with excommunication. Issued a decree banning castrati from the Sistine chapel, 1902.

People are not attacking the curriculum because of "Evangelicals". The article, and many here, are attacking the inclusion of Gary North a "Christian Reconstructivist". There is a difference. I know it is standard procedure around here that anytime someone's religion is part of a news story that the headline immediately pops-up "Evangelical Christianity Under Attack!!" - it is like clockwork. (and from the largest majority of the largest majority in the US - so sad) But, this involves more detail.

I too am worried about the Reconstructivists the likes of North and the Constitution Party folk gaining influence. While they have been successful in the weakening and dillution of the American Enlightenment of Locke and Paine over the last 150 years, they are not far from finally being rid of all the silly notions of the founders and the Constitution. (I even voted for Baldwin, so not saying all Constitution Party people believe in this stuff, but it is part of the founding of the party)

I personally do not think Ron Paul would allow their anti-freedom philosophies to creep in to the curriculum, but you never know. He is a busy man. The article is very unfair, I agree. But, guilt by association is real, you can't be in public with a KKK wizard and claim you only talk about football - it won't fly with the general public. Approval by not disapproving is a real risk in things like this - look at Doug Wead and Jesse Benton and how they are looked at now.

I reserve judgment until I see some of the curriculum material. But, this doesn't help gain interest from outside our circles.

—

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

And I am excited about the Ron Paul curriculum. A couple of my thoughts on this topic.

1. I work in public schools, there is not much good going on there. So any CRITICISM of a NEW SYSTEM must be taken in comparison to a FAILED SYSTEM!

2. If there were some religious bits in the curriculum... I doubt we will find any direct religion in the curriculum. But if there is, it will probably be a good source of discussion with your child, and a good opportunity to study what is out there.

3. If we do find there are any religious parts, we can skip or exclude those parts. There is no FORCING THE PARENT to use all of the curriculum.

4. If there is NO RELIGION in the curriculum... and you are a Christian parent, how hard will it be to supplement some religious lessons INTO the curriculum?

This is the free market, meaning you can choose. If you do use the curriculum, you will not be FORCED to use any one part of it, or RESTRICTED from adding whatever content you want!

The hostility to those who employ quotes from the Scriptures, or, philosophical quotes and ageless anecdotal wisdom that can be easily attributed to their personal upbringing and schooling in the tenets and moral absolutes of the Scriptures needs to STOP; it is a hindrance to the movement!

We're trying to bump usurpers from representative government, and replace them with Statesmen...we love Ron Paul, we can safely assume he has quite a Christian worldview as well; so why the bludgeoning of those who think the tenets of the "pure faith" Thomas Jefferson referenced are vital and worth sharing?

My comment was disputing the 'Evangelical' reference. Even if Ron is Evangelical he does not act like it. North does although I do not know his denomination either. Evangelicals in general push their beliefs harder than the rest. The article was spinning by using this term. I would be a bit troubled if all the teachers were all devout Evangelicals as well.

I didn't know it. What other denominations are considered Evangelical? Do Evangelicals generally believe that if they do not spread the Word than they will not make it to heaven (or salvation)? Or does that define pretty much all Protestant belief?

and other denominations that are baptistic (which means they baptise only by profession of faith) like Evangelical Free, Nazarene, non-denominational community churches, etc. The conservative side of denominations that baptise both infants and by profession of faith would also be considered evangelical. They include Dutch Reformed, some Presbyterians, some Lutherans, French Huguenots, some Episcopals, etc. Evangelicals are really quite a big group with some minor differences among themselves.

Evangelicals hold to the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed even if they have never heard of them. Those doctrines always show up in each church's statement of faith. They believe that salvation is through faith in Christ which is bestowed by God's grace. They don't believe that evangelizing makes them right with God, but is something they do because Christ has instructed them to do so. This evangelism is best done by example rather than talking, because if their lives are beautiful people will want what they have, and if their lives are ugly no amount of talking will make anyone want what they offer.

The definition of the word "evangelical" means those who believe in the good news of the gospel.

It seems most evangelicals, but hardly all, have fallen into a state of disrepair, which is why they have been tending to act silly, legalistic, holier than thou, anti-intellectual, and war-mongerish, but they will eventually get over it.

Are your eyes so polarized? Take a look at what you wrote. Ron Paul practices what he preaches. He is a profit of the modern day. To not see the evangelical similarity's in Dr. Paul is kinda crazy. The man has a conviction of truth and righteousness that is what the gospel is 100% about.

Can you see the similarity Tom Woods, Ben Swann, Lew Rockwell, The Judge, Dr. Paul, Rand Paul all have? All of these men have accepted Jesus Christ as their saviors, but yet remain so humble and let their actions be their words. They fight for the heart of the gospel:

against killing gods children
against stealing
never points the finger at one individual
recognizes this is a war against ideas
promotes peace not war
recognizes their faults

"I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect."-Dr.Paul

Do not confuse him with evangelicals that you see on the t.v. Read the new testament and you will find a much better contrast of what an evangelical should truly emulate. By Gods grace these men will reside in heaven long after this crazy world returns us to dust.

—

THE CLASS OF CITIZENS WHO PROVIDE AT ONCE THEIR OWN FOOD AND THEIR OWN RAIMENT, MAY BE VIEWED AS THE MOST TRULY INDEPENDENT AND HAPPY.
James Madison

Catholics definitely see Jesus Christ as their savior. The catholic Mass is totally built around the salvific act of Jesus sacrificing Himself to save our souls. Actually, one criticism that protestants have against Catholics is that they don't deal directly with God but go through priests who administer the sacraments. Of course Catholics pray directly to God, but we also believe that God established His church with a hierarchy to help teach God's word and to administer sacraments, like Reconciliation and Holy Eucharist.

—

Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle. Mary, Our Mother, protect us under your mantle.

I grew up Catholic. I never heard that term "accepting Jesus Christ as a personal savior" until I moved to the bible belt (heavy Protestant). I was never asked or told to do so either. To be frank, I have absolutely no idea what the phrase means. I have inquired forever, but am still completely clueless about it's meaning.

I don't know what Ben Swann is. But the rest are Catholic. I can deal with Catholics. I guess I got all the downvotes above 'cause I don't see eye to eye with Evangelicals. As I said before, Ron, notwithstanding his Evangelism is not as extreme as the Evangelicals I have met (a good example is the down-voting I got for expressing it). They are not very libertarian. They believe that their beliefs are right/better/superior to all others. They force their beliefs on others. That is not very libertarian to me. Maybe that is why Ron does not act like one.

Anyway, I was making fun of the article for going to the extreme calling these guys Evangelicals. I don't want to argue with you about your beliefs. I am sure you don't like mine either: Atheism. Atheism and Evangelism are on the opposite sides of the spectrum and I just plain don't get 'em. I my lack of belief appalls them. So be it. Who cares? If all of these guys were Atheists no doubt most on DP would have a bit of a problem with it. I would only go downvote their opinions if I was in a really foul mood.

BTW, if I ended all my comments with an Atheist quote or constantly referred to it in my comments do you think I would get a bunch of downvotes? I would. And that is the difference between most believers and non-believers.

Even I am Catholic there are some Atheist that I really admire. I totally can see why Atheist would question the existence of God. Some arguments have good logic. I particularly admire the ones that think that "The Universe is indifferent" and "Everything is just an event that happened". In general, if someone is sincere then I can hear their points of view and learn from them.

I do not like the Starbuck's atheist who is just angry and criticizing and does not have any solid logic.

Thanks. I am so appalled. Somebody down-voted you. I will clear it off with an upvote. That is what I love about Catholics. They do their thing, act humble, believe what they like, and leave everybody else alone. There are certainly some atheists who are too confrontational. I try to keep it to myself as it is an affront to believers everywhere. But I slip up when I have a bad day.

When I read the definition of God, that's where have to depart from believers. The three main elements of God, according to Wiki, are supernatural, relating to morality, and having human-like characteristics. Logically I cannot wrap my mind around any of the three. I think my morals are as good as anybody's (doesn't everybody) but I do not comprehend how morality relates to 'All that is'. So, as defined by common language, I do not believe in It. But, if we get rid of language and went by some shared feeling of awe or connectedness I would probably fit right in with all the believers. I am just a stickler for the meaning of words.

Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site immediately. For more, read the Full Disclaimer